Bradford Cycle Lane

[confusedcyclist]

I use this road daily on my commute and I'm actually really concerned about this junction. I enter Bradford Rd at Thornburry Barracks Roundabout from Pudsey and travel up via Dick Ln, taking the central lane to exit on Leeds Rd.

Clearly with design like this, it's safer to stick to your guns in the middle of the road than having to risk being left hooked at this junction. I really hope they revisit this and reconsider the layout, no cyclist worth his salt would use the segregated lane here as it stands. It undermines the entire pathway up Bradford & Leeds Rd.

One thing's for sure, once it's open motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path. Thumbs up* to the clever chaps who gave this modification to the original plans the go ahead. The junction going to be more treacherous than taking the central lane, how long before there is a death on the hands of CityConnect? I hope its not me, but in reality, it's going to be some poor inexperienced cyclists unwise enough to use the road.

This is a prime example of why segregation isn't the answer. £18.1 of DfT and council money would have been better spent on safety campaign and prosecuting dangerous drivers.

(*) Sarcasm masking anger.

 

[mjr]

One thing's for sure, once it's open motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path.

Are they really not already angry and hostile? If so, then Leeds and Bradford must have really changed since the last time I was there!

This is a prime example of why segregation isn't the answer. £18.1 of DfT and council money would have been better spent on safety campaign and prosecuting dangerous drivers.

Then as soon as the money runs out, the effect starts to fade and we'd be back to square zero with only us truly stubborn people riding there, wouldn't we?

I feel this is more prime example of why we need decent standards that councils must follow, same as they do for carriageways, and that we should ban councils from secretly changing plans between consultation and construction. Cameron may not like "red tape" but there is no hope for "localism" if officers don't have to tell locals what they're doing.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Are they really not already angry and hostile? If so, then Leeds and Bradford must have really changed since the last time I was there!

Sorry, corrected!

One thing's for sure, once it's open even more motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path.

Its about time these safety auditors actually got out of their cars and on a bike and worked out what it's really like to ride on the road.

 

[classic33]

Its about time these safety auditors actually got out of their cars and on a bike and worked out what it's really like to ride on the road.

Or maybe the five council departments involved in this, could actually talk to each other.

 

[Pale Rider]

Quality.

It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.

So what?

There are many similar junctions near me, most with no markings at all.

Makes me more inclined to use the road, but this path is wider and better surfaced than most.

Depends on how busy the junction is, but from the pic it looks as if a cyclist would have a good chance of crossing without having to stop.

I would probably use the cycle path, and even if not, I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.

 

[mjr]

It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.

So what?

So it's not a safe design. You don't only have to give way to the side road, but traffic behind you on the main road. I can't look through 270 degrees at once - can you? If not, it's not possible to use that layout safely. Would anyone like to calculate how far to one's left a rear-view mirror would need to stick out to give useful visibility back over one's right shoulder?

So it's contrary to official guidance, policy and the original plans agreed with cycling groups, but it's being funded from "Cycle City Ambition" budget. Not much ambition being shown there, is there?

There are many similar junctions near me, most with no markings at all.

I'm sorry that you have to suffer such lethally-dangerous crap but why would you want to inflict it on others? Misery loves company?

I would probably use the cycle path, and even if not, I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.

And there, in a nutshell, is part of the reason why cycling in this country still suffers lots of crap from councils. The "I certainly wouldn't make a fuss" mentality

 

[potsy]

So it's not a safe design. You don't only have to give way to the side road, but traffic behind you on the main road. I can't look through 270 degrees at once - can you?

How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?

Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?

 

[Markymark]

How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?

Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?

This. All day long. It's not great. I'd never use it. It's no more dangerous than a pedestrian crossing. It would be inconvenient not dangerous. It would only be dangerous to cyvlistd who ignore the give way sign.

 

[mjr]

How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?

Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?

I usually walk a little way into side roads (which is often where drop kerbs are, locally) so I only need to look left and right and when walking, I'm going much more slowly, so I have more time to check left, then right, then cross half the road and recheck left before entering the second half.

Plus, there's at least some guidance in http://highwaycode.info/rule/170 that drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing, whereas nobbers seem keen to drive into bikes and it seems very rare that they get punished for it.

If cyclists crossing side road mouths on cycle tracks always had priority like pedestrians do, it wouldn't really matter as much what the markings were.

 

[growingvegetables]

Depends on how busy the junction is, .....

Horrendous.

I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.

It would be nice to count on your support for those who DO know the junction, and know something of the silly games that lie behind the "installation"?

 

[downfader]

It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.

So what?

There are many similar junctions near me, most with no markings at all.

Makes me more inclined to use the road, but this path is wider and better surfaced than most.

Depends on how busy the junction is, but from the pic it looks as if a cyclist would have a good chance of crossing without having to stop.

I would probably use the cycle path, and even if not, I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.

We have this design (albeit very narrow, handlebar width and supposedly two-way as per the paint) down here and they're a massive pain in the neck. The problem is there is no obligation on any motorist to keep access clear. We end up waiting minutes sometimes before we can cross ours as motorists fixate on getting out of the junction themselves. Then there is often the issue of trying to assess behind you, remember - motorists turning in are not legally obligated to indicate, so there is that risk too. You're not just trying to assess left and right as a cyclist, you're trying to assess two extra traffic flows.

What you should be making a fuss about is that good designs are out there, are very well known, and that public money has been wasted on this. A lot of public money.

 

[NorthernDave]

Confusingly, for cyclists using the whole route at least, this type of junction on York Road in the Leeds section of the Super Cycleway gives priority to those using the cycle lane, with speed cushions and give way markings for traffic turning off the A64 dual carriageway onto the side roads - the exact opposite of what is being laid out in the Bradford section (this isn't without its own dangers as it will require motorists to notice that they have to give way to a cyclist on a segregated piece of tarmac and then stop with the rear of their vehicle protruding into a live lane of 40mph traffic.)
It's a shame that they didn't see fit to run this section from Seacroft to Killingbeck on quieter local roads / across the council owned playing fields / green space between South Parkway and York Rd keeping it totally away from any roads at all in addition to cutting the corner...

 

[Dan B]

I suspect that whether a left-turning driver gives way or not in practice depend not at all on whether the paint says they should. Given what we know about the compliance with, say, ASLs, I wouldn't feel safe on a roadside path like this without slowing to walking pace at each junction.

 

[growingvegetables]

Given what we know about the compliance with, say, ASLs, I wouldn't feel safe on a roadside path like this without slowing to walking pace at each junction.

Or (shhhh, I did NOT suggest this ... never!) --------













ride in the wrong direction? You get a much clearer view of traffic intentions. Not that I've tried. Of course not.

 

[howard2107]

Whether it is good or bad, no one will be able to use, all the bloody ignorant taxi drivers will park all over it, just like they do on everything else